Historical Context of the Family Proclamation, or Yet Another Post on the Bloggernacle’s Favorite Punching Bag

TL:DR – Church leaders were concerned about gay marriage many years before the legal battles began in Hawaii. Looking at First Presidency statements and general conference addresses from the early 1990s, it becomes clear the 1995 Family Proclamation was compiled from arguments addressing gay marriage. The Proclamation wasn’t necessarily a legal document, but it was clearly intended for use by the church and its members to promote traditional families in private and public spheres.

The inspiration identifying the need for a proclamation on the family came to the leadership of the Church over 23 years ago. It was a surprise to some who thought the doctrinal truths about marriage and the family were well understood without restatement.8 Nevertheless, we felt the confirmation and we went to work. Subjects were identified and discussed by members of the Quorum of the Twelve for nearly a year. Language was proposed, reviewed, and revised. Prayerfully we continually pleaded with the Lord for His inspiration on what we should say and how we should say it. We all learned “line upon line, precept upon precept,” as the Lord has promised (D&C 98:12).

During this revelatory process, a proposed text was presented to the First Presidency, who oversee and promulgate Church teachings and doctrine. After the Presidency made further changes, the proclamation on the family was announced by the President of the Church, Gordon B. Hinckley.

We get some important timing in this description. The need for the proclamation came to the attention of church leadership over 23 years ago. That gives us a target date of 1994. So what were the big-ticket items drawing the attention of church leaders? Well, Elder Packer announced his big three concerns just the previous year: “the gay-lesbian movement, the feminist movement (both of which are relatively new), and the ever-present challenge from the so-called scholars or intellectuals.”

Typically when we talk about the early 1990s, we point to the September Six as representing the biggest headaches for church leaders. That was when six feminists and/or academics were formally disciplined in September 1993 (five excommunicated, one disfellowshipped). The crackdown had a chilling effect on Mormon academic and feminist communities for years afterwards. Several months prior to her September excommunication, Lavina Fielding Anderson wrote an in-depth Dialogue article chronicling two decades worth of interactions between church leaders and the Mormon intellectual community (including feminists). I recommend that article to anyone interested.[1]

While responses to Mormon feminist concerns foreshadow phrasing and concepts in the Family Proclamation (see, for example, Elder Ballard’s 1993 address “Equality though Diversity”), neither feminism nor academia seemed to play pivotal roles in the creation of the document. That badge of honor belongs to gay marriage.

In hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Paul A. Freund of Harvard Law School testified: “Indeed if the law must be as undiscriminating concerning sex as it is toward race, it would follow that laws outlawing wedlock between members of the same sex would be as invalid as laws forbidding miscegenation [interracial marriages]” (Senate Report 92–689, p. 47).

Passage of the ERA would carry with it the risk of extending constitutional protection to immoral same-sex—lesbian and homosexual—marriages. The argument of a homosexual male, for example, would be: “If a woman can legally marry a man, then equal treatment demands that I be allowed to do the same.” Under the ERA, states could be forced to legally recognize and protect such marriages. A result would be that any children brought to such a marriage by either partner or adopted by the couple could legally be raised in a homosexual home. While it cannot be stated with certainty whether this or any other consequence will result from the vague language of the amendment, the possibility cannot be avoided.

But the ERA was eventually defeated, so the church didn’t have anything to worry about, right? Well… leaders still recognized the fight over gay marriage wasn’t a matter of if, but when.

In the 21-page memo,[3] Oaks emphasized the importance of differentiating between the “condition” of homosexuality versus the “practice” of homosexuality (foreshadowing the future distinction of attraction versus behavior.) He also discussed potential legalization of gay marriage, whether through constitutional amendment, legislative action, or court decision. Oaks concluded,

In my opinion, the interests at stake in the proposed legalization of so-called homosexual marriages are sufficient to justify a formal Church position and significant efforts in opposition. Such a position could take the following points, which are stated here in secular terms appropriate for public debate on proposed legislation…

(1) We speak in defense of the family, which is the bulwark of society.

(2) The legal rights conferred on marriage partners are granted in consideration of the procreative purpose and effects of a marriage between a man and a woman. (Even marriages between men and women who are past child-bearing years serve this procreative purpose, since they are role models for the younger, child-bearing couples.)

(3) Cohabitations between persons of the same sex do not meet the time-honored definition and purposes of “marriage” and therefore should not qualify for the legal rights and privileges granted to marriage.

(4) One generation of homosexual “marriages” would depopulate a nation, and, if sufficiently widespread, would extinguish its people. Our marriage laws should not abet national suicide.

The first point obviously has the most relevance for the Family Proclamation, created eleven years later: “We speak in defense of the family, which is the bulwark of society.”

In May 1991, three same-sex couples sued the state of Hawaii for denying them marriage licenses in Baehr v. Lewin (later Baehr v. Miike). Just as predicted, the claim was based on sex discrimination, not sexual orientation. In October of that year, the suit was dismissed by a trial court and promptly appealed to the Hawaii Supreme Court. The First Presidency swiftly responded by issuing a November 1991 letter to all members of the church. The first part reads like a proto-Family Proclamation:

Standards of Morality and Fidelity

We call upon members to renew their commitment to live the Lord’s standard of moral conduct. Parents should teach their children the sacred nature of procreative powers and instill in them a desire to be chaste in thought and deed. A correct understanding of the divinely appointed roles of men and women will fortify all against sinful practices. Our only real safety, physically and spiritually, lies in keeping the Lord’s commandments.

The Lord’s law of moral conduct is abstinence outside of lawful marriage and fidelity within marriage. Sexual relations are proper only between husband and wife appropriately expressed within the bonds of marriage. Any other sexual contact, including fornication, adultery, and homosexual and lesbian behavior, is sinful. Those who persist in such practices or who influence others to do so are subject to Church discipline.

We remind you of scriptures that make clear the relationship between one’s thoughts and actions… There is a distinction between immoral thoughts and feelings and participating in either immoral heterosexual or any homosexual behavior. However, such thoughts and feelings, regardless of their causes, can and should be overcome and sinful behavior should be eliminated….

It took a couple years, till May 1993, before the Hawaii Supreme Court issued its decision to remand the case back to the trial court. But the Supreme Court issued a stipulation; the state needed to provide evidence that denying same-sex couples marriage licenses furthered “compelling state interests.”

In the October 1993 general conference, Elders Packer and Oaks directly addressed the importance of the family and gender roles in the Plan of Salvation. Both stated that gender existed in the preexistence, not a heretofore prominent idea. The overall wording and structure of both talks strongly foreshadowed the future Family Proclamation. At the end of “For Time and All Eternity,” Packer shared a parable of a vault and enclosed treasure. A man would hold the key to the vault (priesthood), but his second key was not enough to open a treasure chest (family). Only a woman with her own key could allow them to open it together. In the parable he mentioned those who were angry that men held two keys (feminists) as well as those who tried to “reshape the key that they had been given to resemble the other key,” implying the LGBT community. Oaks’ talk also could be seen as targeting both the feminist and LGBT communities, “We live in a day when there are many political, legal, and social pressures for changes that confuse gender and homogenize the differences between men and women.”

On February 1, 1994, the First Presidency issued a statement officially opposing what they termed “Same Gender Marriages”:

The principles of the gospel and the sacred responsibilities given us require that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints oppose any efforts to give legal authorization to marriages between persons of the same gender.

Marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God to fulfill the eternal destiny of His children. The union of husband and wife assures perpetuation of the race and provides a divinely ordained setting for the nurturing and teaching of children. This sacred family setting, with father and mother and children firmly committed to each other and to righteous living, offers the best hope for avoiding many of the ills that afflict society.

We encourage members to appeal to legislators, judges, and other government officials to preserve the purposes and sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman, and to reject all efforts to give legal authorization or other official approval or support to marriages between persons of the same gender.

Although there were some talks at the April 1994 general conference on the disintegration and importance of families (Packer, Perry, and Maxwell, as examples), none displayed quite the same similarity to the proclamation as Packer and Oaks’ previous addresses. But, there were other pressing concerns. In May 1994, President Ezra Taft Benson passed away.

In Hawaii, the legislature took up the gay marriage issue, and in June 1994 the governor approved Act 217, which amended the existing statute to clarify marriage as between a man and a woman. As part of that Act, a commission on “Sexual Orientation and the Law” was established to study the issue further, which stayed the trial for a couple years.

In his first general conference as president of the church in October 1994, President Howard W. Hunter talked about the family in his opening remarks:

In the ordinances of the temple, the foundations of the eternal family are sealed in place. The Church has the responsibility—and the authority—to preserve and protect the family as the foundation of society. The pattern for family life, instituted from before the foundation of the world, provides for children to be born to and nurtured by a father and mother who are husband and wife, lawfully married. Parenthood is a sacred obligation and privilege, with children welcomed as a “heritage of the Lord” (Ps. 127:3).

A worried society now begins to see that the disintegration of the family brings upon the world the calamities foretold by the prophets. The world’s councils and deliberations will succeed only when they define the family as the Lord has revealed it to be.

In that same conference, President Hunter spoke at the Priesthood Session on the roles of husbands and fathers. Again, as with the October 1993 conference addresses by Elders Packer and Oaks, the language and structure is incredibly similar to the later Family Proclamation. In his address, Elder Richard G. Scott also used phrases similar to the proclamation, beginning with, “Fundamental to the great plan of happiness and central to the teachings of the Savior is the family.” If we can trust the timing given to us by Elder Oaks, the proclamation was already in the works by this point.

In February 1995, local LDS church leaders (with the support of the Catholic church) filed a motion to intervene in the court case. While publicly they justified their involvement as a moral issue to deal with the “threat to families, to our children, and to our way of life in Hawaii,” that was not the legal argument they used. Church leaders argued they had an interest in the case because if same-sex marriage was legalized, a refusal to perform such a marriage would result in their state-issued marriage licenses getting revoked. The church also expressed concern that refusal to perform a same-sex marriage would result in a sex discrimination lawsuit. The church’s petition was rejected by the circuit court judge in March/April 1995 without comment. They appealed to the state Supreme Court, and that court upheld the rejection the following year, though at least they gave reasons why the concerns were unmerited.

The rejection by the circuit court came just after the death of President Hunter in March 1995, so newly installed President Gordon B. Hinckley took up the mantle of finishing the Family Proclamation. At the same time, Oaks worked on a landmark article for the October 1995 Ensign,“Same-Gender Attraction.”President Gordon B. Hinckley presented the Proclamation on September 23, 1995 at the General Relief Society Meeting (Over at Rational Faiths, Laura Compton covered Aileen Clyde and Chieko Okazaki’s thoughts on that event). At the same time, Ensign magazines were shipping out with Oaks’ article. In that piece, Oaks uses phrases and principles from the Family Proclamation to present the doctrinal case for the church’s position on LGBT issues, yet the proclamation is never specifically referenced (because it hadn’t been released at the time the magazine went to press).

When Hinckley announced the proclamation, he said it was “a declaration and reaffirmation of standards, doctrines, and practices relative to the family which the prophets, seers, and revelators of this church have repeatedly stated throughout its history.” It was a compilation of LDS beliefs about the doctrine of the family, but they didn’t have to reach back too far in history to find the material. It had already been emphasized in recent conference addresses and First Presidency statements as the church responded in real time to the threat of gay marriage.

Common perceptions of the Proclamation

A footnote to Oaks’ recent talk notes a common belief I hear among churchmembers about the Proclamation. It quotes Sister Bonnie Oscarson from a 2015 conference address: “Little did we realize then how very desperately we would need these basic declarations in today’s world as the criteria by which we could judge each new wind of worldly dogma coming at us from the media, the Internet, scholars, TV and films, and even legislators.” I’ve been in wards where some members suggest the brethren were inspired because there’s no way anyone could have predicted the gay marriage threats like Prop 8 in the 2000s. Clearly, that perception is misinformed.

The other idea I encounter (especially online) is that the Proclamation was drafted by lawyers; it’s simply a legal document. This one’s a little more tricky. It’s clear from the 1994 First Presidency statement that a doctrinal understanding of the family needed to inform members as they appealed “to legislators, judges, and other government officials to preserve the purposes and sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman…” Obviously, a clear statement of doctrine was useful for members to argue the church’s position in the public sphere.

So could the Proclamation have been drafted merely for legal efforts? Because that’s exactly how it was used when the church reentered the Hawaii court case after the state’s Supreme Court shot them down. The Proclamation was included as an appendix to the amicus curiae brief filed by the church in April 1997. But instead of arguing about marriage licenses (like in 1995), the church made two arguments in support of traditional families.

“The Traditional Family Lies at the Heart of Society, Providing Benefits Which Can Be Realized From No Other Source”

“Courts Have Long-Recognized that the Protection of the Traditional Family and the Benefits it Provides Constitute a Compelling State Interest”

But none of this really proves the Proclamation was written by lawyers. The legal arguments? Sure. Doctrinal statements in the appendix? I’m not sold. The ideas and phrases in the Proclamation were stated by church leaders in the years leading up to its release. It wouldn’t take a rocket scientist, or a particularly skilled legal mind, to put together a basic outline. As Oaks said, the text was proposed and then revised (prayerfully) by apostles and the First Presidency. Ultimately, it was a community effort among the Brethren. (Which might explain why a certain female auxiliary leader at the time felt the document would’ve benefited from a woman’s touch.)

Questions

Do you find the argument that the Proclamation was drafted by lawyers convincing? Why or why not?

Do you think there were other factors besides the LGBT movement that factored into the Brethren seeing a need for the Family Proclamation? In Oaks’ most recent talk, he mentioned cohabitation and out-of-wedlock kids in addition to gay marriage. Did those play a role?

[1] That Dialogue article also covers the Church’s crackdown on several right-wing fringe movements towards the end of 1992 and into early 1993. I recently mentioned one of these, the Harmston group, in a different post.

[3] At the end of this memo on LGBT rights are two interesting caveats. One is Oaks warning the Brethren of the irony in using the 1878 case Reynolds v. United States in arguing that marriage should be between a man and woman, given that court case was over anti-polygamy laws. The other caveat is pertinent to the 2015 November 5th Policy. Oaks warned in that 1984 memo that in family law, someone could accuse the church that “in opposing homosexual marriages the Church was also opposing parental rights.” Last month, in a RadioWest interview with Doug Fabrizio, Gregory Prince explained this idea was a major driving force behind the exclusion policy:

[about 37:52] I’ve spoken to other legal experts, non-LDS. One in particular, Bill Eskridge, who is a professor of law at Yale law school, is gay and is considered a national authority on LGBT law. And he says, “From where I sit, these are concerns that shouldn’t even exist.” But for [the Church], somehow, there is this concern that churchmembers could come at them legally, could sue them for alienation of affection or whatever by having their kids attend church and hear things that might be different than what their gay parents believe in and live. Now, that doesn’t hold together in my mind, but apparently it does in the minds of other people. And, as I’ve talked this around, this seems to be pretty much a consensus feeling of what was driving that policy.

44 thoughts on “Historical Context of the Family Proclamation, or Yet Another Post on the Bloggernacle’s Favorite Punching Bag”

I have for a while thought that the basis of the proclamation was created mainly for legal reasons, but you have made points that say that might not be the case. I always assumed that while creating the document saying “we believe in this form of marriage”, it was natural to also cover the issue of “living in sin.”

I have moved from being interested in the proclamation’s origins to a lack of interest given the current positions and their effect on individuals.

Yes. I can’t even count the times I’ve heard the unfounded claim that the Proclamation was prophetic because it preceded any political movement toward legalizing same-sex marriage. When I hear it, I no longer let that ill-informed notion stand unchallenged in Sunday School or Priesthood meeting.

It is interesting, to me at least, that (a) in editing his October 2010 conference talk Elder Packer backed up from calling the Proclamation a “revelation” and instead characterized it as “a guide that members of the church would do well to read and to follow” but now (b) Elder Oaks is characterizing it in terms of “inspiration”, “confirmation”, and “revelatory process.” I am not convinced that Elder Oaks is being fully candid about the origin of the Proclamation.

The Proclamation was crafted at least in part by lawyer(s). Elder Oaks is a lawyer. There were probably other lawyers among the Brethren also involved in drafting, but I haven’t gone back to confirm that by checking the background of each of the signers.

While the notion of “parental rights” may have been one of the driving forces with respect to the November 2015 policy, it does not seem to me to have been the primary force (unless the drafting of that policy was even more blundering than I supposed and than indicated by the necessity of the “clarification” letter). If “parental rights” had been the primary concern, the issue could have been addressed by expanding the already existing policy on parental consent to baptism to ensure that such consent (to baptism, ordination, etc.) was informed consent — informed about what the Church may teach children about same-sex relationships including same-sex marriage.

It will be interesting to see what Greg has to say about it further when his new book is published.

I do think it convincing because everything points to the involvement of lawyers. Does that mean others didn’t take part? Of course not. Even in law firms non-lawyers might have input in drafts. Also, of course other factors played a part but not predominantly

Another great and thorough post, Mary Ann. I’ve always just sort of gotten the feeling (no evidence, mind you) from reading the proclamation that it’s quite similar in its arguments to most other paranoid observations about gay marriage in other conservative/religious circles. So in my mind, for all that many members say it’s inspired and necessary, etc., it’s really just re-hashing a lot of the anti-gay rhetoric that was already around. Mormons seem to have a particular susceptibility to seeing old wine in new (i.e. Mormon) bottles and saying how awesomely inspired and original OUR version of bigotry is.

I think the proclamation is both a legal document and a document that functions in another important way. In my view, it’s clear that anti-gay marriage (really, just plain old fashioned bigotry) rhetoric and thinking is based on fear. Many people against gay marriage make vague statements like “it’s a threat to traditional marriage” when, of course, it’s nothing of the sort. Giving other people rights doesn’t take away yours. And so the proclamation, though it claims to be an inspired document is, I think, designed to foment fear and sort of whip up the troops. It’s a statement of belief, yes, but it’s also very clear that not all marriage, but only heterosexual marriage is the bedrock of society and it further pushes the gender binary angle as well, clearly designed to counteract the assertions of most reputable psychologists that gender is a spectrum, not a binary. So the proclamation is one way (among many) that our leaders create fear in order to justify bigotry and exclusion. This, IMHO, is unacceptable for an institution who claims to have Christ at its center. It boggles my mind that when we encounter a group of people that are already marginalized in our culture (women, LGBTQ folks, young people who don’t serve missions, etc.) we never seem to err on the side of compassion but rather to err on the side of pharisaical paranoia and excessive rules. I don’t know where that comes from, but it’s no wonder we’re losing most of our young people. I really believe that the church will shrink significantly over the next 50 years if radical changes aren’t made in how we think about this stuff. But of course, since we claim divine inspiration when it comes to our bigotry, we’ll likely die on that hill. It’s too bad that fear, not love, seems to be running things.

I definitely noticed that he mentioned a number of times cohabitation along with homosexuality. I thought that was a change in direction. The cohabitators can just say “I do” and all their sins go away. It’s not that easy for the homosexuals. My wife and I were on a vacation and saw two men both doting over their little girl. It did not bother me one bit. I think this argument of homosexuals not being fit parents is going to vanish as more of us have friends, neighbors, and family members that function and thrive with two mothers or two fathers. Who really thinks that a child in the foster system wouldn’t be better off with homosexual parents who were committed to each other and committed to them?

I wish Elder Oaks would have been around 30,000 years ago to warn against mating with Neanderthals. Damn DNA testing says I have 4% Neanderthal blood in me. Much to the chagrin of BY and Nephi, it turns out the African race that stayed in Africa and did not migrate northward is the only pure race that did not mix with their short, pale, red headed, almost human cousins. (My wife is more pale than I am so I contend she has a higher percentage of Neanderthal blood).

At this point I have a hard time caring about what the “official” position of the church is on anything. I will never go “all in” on any policy or doctrine again. Everything is subject to change. I am trying to walk the fine line of serving, sustaining, being true to myself, loving others, not alienating myself from my community that I love and teaching my kids to be good people.

I think the brethren wrote the proclamation in an effort to reinforce principles that were important to them, as part of their stewardship to watch over the church. I am glad that Elder Oaks acknowledged that they wrote and re-wrote it — it was not a revelation. It is their own proclamation to all who have ears to hear. He suggested the process was accompanied by inspiration, and that’s a reasonable perspective — I suppose they approach all matters in a prayerful pattern.

“But of course, since we claim divine inspiration when it comes to our bigotry, we’ll likely die on that hill.”

I’m reading a book on the history of Timbukto and the recent (2012) take-over by Jihadist. As I read about the propaganda and behavior of the jihadists (Al-Queda relatives), I am totally weirded out by how their rhetoric aligns with what I am hearing coming out of SLC. (We know you don’t understand, but you just have to trust. Sharia Law is good for you. If we all just obey God’s law as revealed to his holy prophet (and explained by us), the world will be a better place.)

This post paints Elder Oaks a bit as someone on mission to root out homosexuality from the church since the 1970s. My mother was in his ward as a teen and says even back then (1960s?) he was a rigid bible-thumper. I find that have little patience left for Elder Oaks and zero interest in the Proc. I can’t see his behavior at BYU or now as being directed from Christ.

I was encouraged that only one speaker in this conference spoke on this subject. My memory says this is a reduction.
Most first world countries now recognise marriage equality, and my concern is that the church unless it changes this position is placing its self and members at the extreme of the political spectrum. An example is that in Australia, there are members advocating for less gun control. This and the opposition to gay marriage are extreme positions.
What is left of taking the Gospel to the whole earth? If it comes packaged with extreme politics, it will not be possible to see the Gospel for the politics.

This was a great post that drew a lot of interesting connections between the historic events that gave birth to the Proclamation and the issues that the Church struggles with even today. I have a couple thoughts:

1) This account portrays Oaks as even more of a bigot than I had realized, which is saying something considering my low opinion of his more recent homophobia. It seems that he’s had a grudge against LGBT people from the very beginning of his apostlehood. Is there any other doctrine or cause with which he has been similarly involved? Because it sort of looks like his life mission has been to oppose gay rights, and nothing more.

2) Even the language of Oaks’ recent talk about the origins of the Proclamation supports the viewpoint that it is primarily a legal document. He calls it a “restatement” of fundamental values, which is a noun commonly used in law to signify non-authoratative but well-respected compilations of legal principles and rules. Plus, the process he describes of how the Proclamation was drafted is very similar to how one might imagine the American Law Institute went about writing the Second Restatement of Torts, laboriously redrafting each section to suit the preferences of all the various authors. I’m not saying that non-lawyers never had their hands on it, but it seems clear that someone with a legal background made sure to state all doctrinal positions that might provide the Church with a legal footing in potential future lawsuits. The whole thing reeks of legalese.

(By the way, throughout this article, the possessive “its” is incorrectly spelled as the conjunctive “it’s.” This doesn’t really matter. I just thought I’d let you know in case you wanted to fix it.)

“temple members” — I’ve seen that construction applied to members of Jim Jones’ People’s Temple and to congregants of various Jewish “temples”. I’m fairly confident none of them have commented here. Ron’s comment is the first time I can recall seeing that construction appear to mean “LDS temple recommend holders.” But then, I’m often linguistically behind the times. Incidentally, there is a great variety of thought and belief possible within the scope of acceptable answers to temple recommend interview questions — at least where interviewers follow handbook instructions not to vary or expand on those prescribed questions. Maybe Ron is only acquainted with a much more homogeneous group of temple recommend holders and local leaders than I have seen. That could explain his assumption.

Excellent post bringing in the historical context and setting leading up to and surrounding the proc. It really seems to have begun with Oaks’ 1984 memorandum. One thing that stands out to me is one of the concluding points of the memo that you quoted above:

“Even marriages between men and women who are past child-bearing years serve this procreative purpose, since they are role models for the younger, child-bearing couples.”

What he believed back then – and still apparently believes today based on his talk at a recent regional conference – is that people, especially young people, can be influenced to be homosexual. The family and traditional marriage need defending because gay marriage will influence otherwise straight people to become gay and bring about the depopulation of society. In other words, it appears that Oaks (and some of the other senior brethren) do not really believe homosexuality is about biology. Or maybe more accurately – based on his recent regional conference talk – he believes that it is simply a mortal affliction like a susceptibility to alcoholism or some other pathological condition that is not immoral per se but only immoral if acted on. If this has been his foundational belief for over 30 years – reinforced by BYU psychology professors who “successfully” treated gay men to lessen their attractions – it seems unlikely that he will change that view anytime soon. I have to hope that he is one of the few among the 15 who still have that view.

Holdenmorrisseycaulfield, apparently President Kimball first popularized that idea. Unfortunately, I heard a GA earlier this year make the same argument.

JR, your lawyer angle piqued my interest. Near as I can tell, three lawyers were among the FP or Q12 at the time it was getting drafted: Hunter, Faust, and Oaks. Hunter was president through much of the creation of the proc, so his influence would’ve been significant. Interestingly, we had two guys with media/publishing background (Hinckley & Monson), some with political experience (Faust as state rep, Haight as mayor, Maxwell as political science professor), and several involved in church education (Packer, Maxwell, Holland, Eyring). All of these backgrounds could’ve been useful in crafting the statement. The rest of the occupations were surgeon (Nelson), a nuclear scientist (Scott), and several businessmen (Perry, Haight, Ballard, Wirthlin, Hales).

The national suicide argument seems to have been either thoughtless repetition of what someone else said or an unintentional(?) reductio ad absurdum even when made in 1984. I suspect the former. However, the notion of influence to same-sex sexual liasons could make some sense if it were directed toward bi-sexuals — or even heterosexuals interested in experimentation — rather than the fear that heterosexuals would become homosexuals. Could any of the Brethren have bi-sexuals in mind when speaking of role models or influence? BTW, why are bi-sexuals generally left out of these discussions? Sexual orientation does not seem to be simply an either/or gay or straight matter. Is it that there are too few bi-sexuals to be concerned about?
Bryce, the “mortal affliction” theory may have been reinforced by those professionals who claimed to have some degree of success with some version of reparative therapy, but it doesn’t need their support. It seems to me to be derived from over-confidence in the completeness of LDS understanding of the hereafter (Plan of Salvation – whatever) and the current absence of any LDS scripture that might refer to a homosexual condition in the hereafter. (Some think Alma 41:5 applies, but I don’t see it..) What have I missed? I think I’ll wait for someone else to inform me — maybe a resurrected being who was gay in mortality — he/she might know whether that condition persists hereafter and through the resurrection.

That’s exactly what I’ve noticed. Religious rhetoric, when its intent is to browbeat its followers into submission, is remarkably similar. My academic period of specialty is the Renaissance and it’s spooky how much the language of both the reformers and of the Catholic Church is mirrors the doom and gloom talk of the LDS Church when it’s trying to tell us the world will end unless we all embrace the truth coming from the pulpit. Absolutely absurd, but quite effective for a certain kind of member. I wonder if there will ever come a tipping point where more members of the church will not take a literal approach to the B of M and will take every prophetic pronouncement with a grain of salt. A lot of this appears to me to be more about losing “authority” than with any real moral concern. I’d like at least one of our leaders to publicly note that gay marriage hasn’t destroyed straight marriage. That would be a start. The arguments the church puts forth against gay marriage hold water neither from a faith-based perspective nor from a logical/rational one. We’re just putting ourselves deeper into that hole, IMO.

holdenmorrisseycaulfield, it’s not three good ideas and one stupid idea, it’s four lousy talking points against same-sex marriage.

“(1) We speak in defense of the family, which is the bulwark of society.”

Elder Oaks, family is a bulwark from what? What is the great threat that same-sex marriage poses? If God’s plan of happiness is for His children to get married and have children, how does telling a gay person to remain celibate further God’s plan for that person?

“(2) The legal rights conferred on marriage partners are granted in consideration of the procreative purpose and effects of a marriage between a man and a woman.”

Elder Oaks, is the “procreative purpose” really the only reason we encourage marriage? Does society gain no other benefits from monogamy?

“(3) Cohabitations between persons of the same sex do not meet the time-honored definition and purposes of “marriage” and therefore should not qualify for the legal rights and privileges granted to marriage.”

Elder Oaks, It seems to me that you are using the restrictive definition of “marriage’ as a reason to not change the restrictive definition of “marriage”. A quasi-analogous argument, “Mormons do not meet the time-honored definition of ‘Christian’ and therefore should not qualify to be known as ‘Christians’.” Would you be comfortable if the rest of the Christian community continued to exclude Mormons because of their non-traditional beliefs or would you rather the definition of Christian be expanded?

“(4) One generation of homosexual “marriages” would depopulate a nation, and, if sufficiently widespread, would extinguish its people. Our marriage laws should not abet national suicide.”

Elder Oaks, one generation of homosexual celibacy would depopulate a nation, and, if sufficiently widespread, would extinguish its people. Our church doctrine should not abet national suicide. FTFY

thomaskinrade, “By the way, throughout this article, the possessive “its” is incorrectly spelled as the conjunctive “it’s.” This doesn’t really matter. I just thought I’d let you know in case you wanted to fix it.” Should be all fixed. Thanks!

You may not like what comes from the authority of the Church. It may contradict your political views. It may contradict your social views. It may interfere with some of your social life. But if you listen to these things, as if from the mouth of the Lord himself, with patience and faith, the promise is that ‘the gates of hell shall not prevail against you; yeah, and the Lord God will disperse the powers of darkness from before you, and cause the heavens to shake for your good, and His name’s glory.’ (D&C 21:6)
President Harold B. Lee, General Conference, October 1970

I think the document is both legally motivated (noted by its immediate use in a legal document) and a public exhibition of doctrinal teachings concerning a multitude of family issues. They are not mutually exclusive. I think the multifasceted nature gives a certain level of flexibility in discussion its purpose and authoring.

Maelstrom. President Harold B. Lee also said in conference that a liberal is just someone with a weak testimony. Which flatly contradicts the church’s current stance that gospel principles are found in “both parties”. Also, there is very little politics in the post and ensuing discussion. Rather, there is quite a bit of searching and pondering.

ChrisClarke, given Oaks’ recent talk where he discussed out-of-wedlock births alongside gay marriage, I agree that the views in that post are very useful in fleshing out other factors for the proclamation.

Maelstrom, It may be that some members take such delight in challenging and doubting. It may also be that some are incorrectly thought to be merely taking such delight when instead they are working toward understanding when a prophet is “moved upon by the Holy Ghost”. The latter effort is a part of the process described by President J. Reuben Clark, Jr. of the First Presidency as follows:
“…even the President of the Church, himself, may not always be ‘moved upon by the Holy Ghost,’ when he addresses the people. This has happened about matters of doctrine (usually of highly speculative character) where subsequent Presidents of the Church and the people themselves have felt that in declaring the doctrine, the announcer was not ‘moved upon by the Holy Ghost.’ How shall the Church know when these adventurous expeditions of the Brethren into these highly speculative principles and doctrines meet the requirements of the statutes that the announcers thereof have been ‘moved upon by the Holy Ghost’? The Church will know by the testimony of the Holy Ghost in the body of the members, whether the Brethren in voicing their views are ‘moved upon by the Holy Ghost’; and in due time that knowledge will be made manifest.” http://emp.byui.edu/marrottr/ClarkWhenAreWritings.pdf Historically, there is also room for significant disagreement among the Brethren as to what teachings are speculative. The question is not merely one of likes, political or social views. For at least some members reflective consideration, and not reflexive acceptance of whatever is said, is a necessary part of seeking or preparing to seek the testimony of the Holy Ghost and of being a part of making any needed corrections “by the testimony of the Holy Ghost in the body of the members.” Some members seem to delight in questioning the motives of others engaged in such consideration of the words of Church leaders.

Elder Oaks stated in his recent talk:
“In 1995 a President of the Church and 14 other Apostles of the Lord issued these important doctrinal statements. As one of only seven of those Apostles still living, I feel obliged to share what led to the family proclamation for the information of all who consider it.” (now only six living apostles, as Elder Hales passed away later that day)

Did anyone else think it was a bit odd that he specifically mentioned that? By emphasizing that only a handful of those proclamation-signing apostles survive, Elder Oaks implies that the junior apostles perhaps don’t share his views on the subject, and that his position is a dwindling one among the current apostles. Furthermore, his appeal to seniority (suggesting that only the old guard really knows what’s best for everyone) indicates that there could be other such divisions among the brethren.

I thought it odd, but I think it was more to address a division in members rather than leaders. It reminds me of McConkie talking about the 1978 ban being lifted, or Nelson declaring the exclusion policy revelation. It’s more, “I was there. Here’s what *really* happened. This is why you need to take this seriously. Stop second-guessing us on this.”

Jack – I did notice that when I listed a bit more closely. I took it a bit like you did, but not just thinking of the CURRENT apostles. I read it more as, “Fighting against the gays has been one of my primary initiatives and I don’t want you reversing it just as soon as I pass on.” OK – I feel a bit snarky this Monday.

I agree with Jack, noting that he was the only one to bring up the subject. My concern is that Oaks is close to the top of the succession ladder; and I have trouble imagining him asking the Lord whether equality for gays or women should be adjusted(there is no need to ask, he knows), whereever he is in authority. With the policy that the 15 all agree, he has power to limit the church’s progress.
Jana Riess’ research says that we will loose 80% of “the rising generation over these issues” so we will be claiming 16m but with 4m active, as us oldies die off.

Thanks for putting together such a thorough look at the FamProc, Mary Ann. I have to agree with other commenters that the fourth point in Oaks’s memo is particularly bizarre. He really thinks (thought?) that gay marriage is *so* enticing that, given the option, *everyone* will opt for gay marriage over straight marriage? It sounds like he’s saying that, contra Elder Bednar, not only are there some gay people in the Church, there are *only* gay people.

“Do you find the argument that the Proclamation was drafted by lawyers convincing?:”
You’ve done a fine job of putting the creation of the proclamation into context.of the times. I don’t think there is any doubt that the proclamation as we know it was created for the express purpose of combating marriage equality. It was assumed in the ’50’s that being a “homosexual” was a psychological condition. Obviously, the science has moved forward but the church leadership has not. At one time, there were many internal documents regarding the creation of the proclamation that had been posted on an internet site. Many of these were memos going back and forth between the church committee and the law firm. regarding content, mission, and timing of the document, they were creating.

James, I have yet to see any leaked documentation clearly relating to the drafting of the proclamation, so I’d love for anyone to point me to that source. In searching, I did come across this recent (October 9th) post by blogger nearingkolob that has tons of good resources, more than what I noted in my post: https://proclamationonthefamily.wordpress.com

The only legal info I can find relating to events prior to the proclamation’s release deal with the church’s involvement in the court case (mentioned in the OP), and the church’s involvement with establishing the coalition with the Catholic church in “Hawaii’s Future Today” to influence the 1994 legislative session. There is quite a bit more leaked info available for the legal efforts *after* the proclamation was released.

I’ve seen comments on Reddit to the effect of “my relative/friend was involved and saw the memos going back and forth between the church and the law firm and/or law school about the drafting of the proclamation for use in lawsuits,” but I have yet to see any of those original memos (or later leaked references) from 1994-1995. If I can find them, I’d love to link them here for future readers.

I won’t claim the statistical skill that Ziff has, but according to Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sub-replacement_fertility ), replacement fertility in a developed country like the US is 2.1 births per woman. If we assume that 10% of women are homosexual, that should translate to 2.3 births per heterosexual woman — assuming that the replacement rate of 2.1 births per woman does not already account for the 10% of homosexuals in the population. (210 births/100 women — there are 90 heterosexual women in that 100 women, so 210/900=2.33333). I believe that the 2.1/woman rate already accounts for mortality and infertility.

From what I see, if depopulation were truly a major concern, then we should be more concerned with use of birth control and family planning than whether 10% of the population is allowed to marry or not.

My rhetoric is not strong, but the concern over depopulation seems like a fairly obvious example of a fallacious slippery slope argument. If 5-10% of the population is homosexual, it is highly unlikely that that subset of the population will have significant impacts on overall fertility.